I made numerous efforts to make this source format useful in as many use cases as possible (but some improvements are still possible) and I have added hints to encourage maintainers to switch. Thanks to this, the adoption rate of this new source format has been very good and it’s now the most widely used source package format in Debian—only two years after its introduction in Debian unstable.

With 9829 source package using “3.0 (quilt)”, it surpassed the number of source package still using “1.0” (7368). (Those numbers have been taken from http://upsilon.cc/~zack/stuff/dpkg-v3/ on december 13th 2011.) The number of source packages using “3.0 (quilt)” doubled this year.

(Click on the picture to see it full size)

Of the 7368 packages using the old format, 6816 packages trigger the missing-debian-source-format lintian tag. This means that only 552 source packages have explicitly opted to keep using the old format and that the bulk of the remaining packages are rarely updated packages that have not been switched yet.

This is my monthly summary of my Debian related activities. If you’re among the people who made a donation to support my work (170 €, thanks everybody!), then you can learn how I spent your money. Otherwise it’s just an interesting status update on my various projects.

Libre Software Meeting / RMLL

I attended “only” 3 days out of the 6 but that was a deliberate choice since I was also attending DebConf for a full week later in the month.

During those 3 days I helped with the Debian booth that was already well taken care of by Frédéric Perrenot and Arnaud Gambonnet. Unfortunately we did not have any goodies to sell. We (as in Debian France) should do better in this regard next time.

One of the talks I attended presented EnVenteLibre. This website started as an online shop for two French associations (Ubuntu-fr, Framasoft). They externalize all the logistic to a company and only have to care about ordering goodies and delivering to the warehouse of the logistic company. They can also take some goodies from the warehouse and ship them for a conference, etc. We discussed a bit to see how Debian France could join, they are even ready to study what can be done to operate at the international level (that would be interesting for Debian with all the local associations that we have throughout the world).

Back to the LSM, while I had 3 good days in Strasbourg, it seems to mee that the event is slowly fading out… it’s far from being an international event and the number of talks doesn’t make for a better quality.

BTW, do you remember that Debconf 0 and Debconf 1 were associated to this event while it was in Bordeaux?

dpkg-source improvements

During my time in Strasbourg (and in particular the travel to go there and back!) I implemented some changes to “3.0 (quilt)” source format. It will now fail to build the source package if there are upstream changes that are not properly recorded in a quilt patch:

dpkg-source: info: local changes detected, the modified files are:
2ping-1.1/README
dpkg-source: info: you can integrate the local changes with dpkg-source --commit
dpkg-source: error: aborting due to unexpected upstream changes, see /tmp/2ping_1.1-1.diff.cki8YB

As the error message hints, there’s a new --commit command supported by dpkg-source that will generate the required quilt patch to fix this. In the process you will have to submit a name and edit the patch header (pre-formatted with DEP3 compatible fields). You can get back the old behavior with the --auto-commit option.

Build flags changes

Ever since we adopted the Ubuntu changes to let dpkg-buildpackage set some build related environment variables (see #465282), many Debian people expressed their concerns with this approach both because it broke some packages and because those variables are not set if you execute debian/rules directly.

In the end, the change was not quickly reverted and we fixed the package that this change broke. Despite this we later decided that the correct approach to inject build flags would be a new interface: dpkg-buildflags.

Before changing dpkg-buildpackage to no longer set the compilation flags, I wanted to ensure dpkg-buildflags had some decent coverage in the archive (to avoid breaking too many packages again). My criteria was that CDBS and dh (of debhelper) should be using it. With the recent debhelper change (see #544844) this has been reached so I changed dpkg-buildpackage accordingly.

Makefile snippets provided by dpkg

At the same time, I also wanted an easy way for maintainers not using dh or CDBS to be able to fix their package easily and go back to injecting the compilation flags in the environment but doing it from the rules files. Starting with the next version of dpkg, this will be possible with something like this:

DPKG_EXPORT_BUILDFLAGS = 1
include /usr/share/dpkg/default.mk

Without DPKG_EXPORT_BUILDFLAGS the variables are not exported in the environment and have no effect unless you use them somewhere.

dpkg-buildflags improvements

Given the renewed importance that dpkg-buildflags will take now that dpkg-buildpackage no longer sets the corresponding environment variables, I thought that I could give it some love by fixing all the open issues and implementing some suggestions I got.

I also had a chat with a few members of the technical committee to discuss how hardening build flags could be enabled in Debian and this also resulted in a few ideas of improvements.

Will all those changes, the complete set of compilation flags can be returned by dpkg-buildflags (before it would only return the default flags and it was expected that the Debian packaging would add whatever else is required afterwards). Now the maintainer just has to use the new environment variables to ensure the returned values correspond to what the package needs.

DebConf: rolling and hardening build flags

I spent a full week in DebConf (from Sunday 24th to Sunday 31th) and as usual, it’s been a pleasure to meet again all my Debian friends. It’s always difficult to find a good balance between attending talks, working in the hacklab and socializing but I’m pretty happy with the result.

I did not have any goal when I arrived, except managing the Rolling Bof (slides and video here) but all the discussions during talks always lead to a growing TODO list. This year was no exception. The technical committee BoF resulted in some discussions of some of the pending issues, in particular one that interests me: how to enable hardening build flags in Debian (see #552688).

We scheduled another discussion on the topic for Tuesday and the outcome is that dpkg-buildflags is the proper interface to inject hardening build flags provided that it offers a mean to drop unwanted flags and a practical way to inject them in the ./configure command line.

Given this I got to work and implemented those new features and worked with Kees Cook to prepare a patch that enables the hardening build flags by default. It’s not ready to be merged but it’s working already (see my last update in the bug log).

A few words about the Rolling BoF too. The room was pretty crowded: as usual the topic generates lots of interest. My goal with the BoF was very limited, I wanted to weigh the importance of the various opinions expressed in the last gigantic discussion on debian-devel.

It turns out a vast majority of attendants believe that testing is already usable. But when you ask them if we must advertise it more, answers are relatively mixed. When asked if we can sustain lots of testing/rolling users, few people feel qualified to reply but those that do tend to say yes.

More dpkg work

Lots of small things done:

I did again some bug triaging on Launchpad. But Brian Murray did a lot of it and the result is impressive, we’re down to 154 bugs (from more than 300 a month ago!).

I updated my multiarch branch multiple times. I was hoping to meet Guillem during DebConf to make some progress on this front but alas he did not attend. I have been asked a status update multiple times during my time in DebConf.

I fixed a regression in update-alternatives (#633627), a test-suite failure when run as root (#634961), a segfault in findbreakcycle. There have been a bunch of minor improvements too (#634510, #633539, #608260, #632937).

Package Tracking System and DEHS

Christoph Berg recently wrote a replacement for DEHS because the latter was not really reliable and not under control of the QA team. This is a centralized system that uses the watch files to detect new upstream versions of the software available in Debian.

I updated the Package Tracking System to use this new tool instead of DEHS. The new thing works well but we’re still lacking the mail notifications that DEHS used to send out. If someone wants to contribute it, that would be great!

Misc packaging work

I did some preliminary work to update the WordPress package to the latest upstream version (3.2). I still have to test the resulting package, replacing upstream shipped copies of javascript/PHP libraries is always a risk and unfortunately all of them had some changes in the integration process.

I also updated nautilus-dropbox to version 0.6.8 released upstream. I also uploaded the previous version (that was in testing at that time) to squeeze-backports. So there’s now an official package in all the Debian distributions (Squeeze, Wheezy, Sid and Experimental)!

It’s quite common that the upstream build system generates/updates some files but does not clean them up properly when you call make clean. In that case, when you rebuild the package a second time in the same tree, the generated Debian source package will contain those changes.

You usually don’t want those changes. They make your package harder to review because they contain unneeded modifications (either directly in the .diff.gz with the old source format, or in a new patch in debian/patches/debian-changes-<ver> with the “3.0 (quilt)” source format).

I’ll show you 3 ways to avoid this problem. They are all workarounds, the proper fix would be to improve the upstream build system to really clean up the generated files. This is usually possible for files that are “created”, but it’s much more cumbersome for files that are “updated” (you would have to keep a backup of the original file so that you can restore it).

The traditional fix

Instead of relying on the upstream build system to do the work, we modify the clean target in debian/rules to remove the files that are left-over. Since “debian/rules clean” is always called before a source package is built, those generated files are not included as changes compared to what upstream provided.

A common work-around: always build from a clean state

As you have noted, the problem only happens when you build (source and binaries) twice in a row in the same tree. Some VCS-helper tools always build the Debian package in a temporary tree which is exported from the VCS. This is the case of svn-buildpackage by default and of git-buildpackage if you use its --git-export-dir option.

I don’t like this solution because it solves the problem only for the maintainer. Anyone else who is working on top of the package without using the same VCS-helper tool would be affected by the problem.

A new way to avoid the problem

Since it’s now possible to store dpkg-source options in the source package itself, we can conveniently have everybody use the --extend-diff-ignore option. It tells dpkg-source to ignore some files when checking whether we have made changes to upstream files.

For example if you want to ignore changes made on the files “config.sub”, “config.guess” and “Makefile” you could put this in debian/source/options:

Being able to rebuild an existing Debian package is a very useful skill. It’s a prerequisite for many tasks that an admin might want to perform at some point: enable a feature that is disabled in the official Debian package, rebuild a source package for another suite (for example build a Debian Testing package for use on Debian Stable, we call that backporting), include a bug fix that upstream developers prepared, etc. Discover the 4 steps to rebuild a Debian package.

1. Download the source package

The preferred way to download source packages is to use APT. It can download them from the source repositories that you have configured in /etc/apt/sources.list, for example:

Note that the lines start with “deb-src” instead of the usual “deb”. This tells APT that we are interested in the source packages and not in the binary packages.

After an apt-get update you can use apt-get source publican to retrieve the latest version of the source package “publican”. You can also indicate the distribution where the source package must be fetched with the syntax “package/distribution“. apt-get source publican/testing will grab the source package publican in the testing distribution and extract it in the current directory (with dpkg-source -x, thus you need to have installed the dpkg-dev package).

If you don’t want to use APT, or if the source package is not hosted in an APT source repository, you can download a complete source package with dget -u dsc-url where dsc-url is the URL of the .dsc file representing the source package. dget is provided by the devscripts package. Note that the -u option means that the origin of the source package is not verified before extraction.

2. Install the build-dependencies

Again APT can do the grunt work for you, you just have to use apt-get build-dep foo to install the build-dependencies for the last version of the source package foo. It supports the same syntactic sugar than apt-get source so that you can run apt-get build-dep publican/testing to install the build-dependencies required to build the testing version of the publican source package.

If you can’t use APT for this, enter the directory where the source package has been unpacked and run dpkg-checkbuilddeps. It will spit out a list of unmet build dependencies (if there are any, otherwise it will print nothing and you can go ahead safely). With a bit of copy and paste and a “apt-get install” invocation, you’ll install the required packages in a few seconds.

3. Do whatever changes you need

I won’t detail this step since it depends on your specific goal with the rebuild. You might have to edit debian/rules, or to apply a patch.

But one thing is sure, if you have made any change or have recompiled the package in a different environment, you should really change its version number. You can do this with “dch --local foo” (again from the devscripts package), replace “foo” by a short name identifying you as the supplier of the updated version. It will update debian/changelog and invite you to write a small entry documenting your change.

4. Build the package

The last step is also the simplest one now that everything is in place. You must be in the directory of the unpacked source package.
Now run either “debuild -us -uc” (recommended, requires the devscripts package) or directly “dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc”. The “-us -uc” options avoid the signature step in the build process that would generate a (harmless) failure at the end if you have no GPG key matching the name entered in the top entry of the Debian changelog.

Most Debian packages are managed with a version control system (VCS) like git, subversion, bazaar or mercurial. The particularities of the 3.0 (quilt) source format are not without consequences in terms of integration with the VCS. I’ll give you some tips to have a smoother experience.

All the samples given in the article assume that you use git as version control system.

1. Add .pc to the VCS ignore list

.pc is the directory used by quilt to store its internal data (list of applied patches, backup of modified files). It’s also created by dpkg-source so that quilt knows that the patches are in debian/patches (and not in patches which is the default directory used by quilt). For that reason, the directory is kept even if you unapply all the patches.

However you don’t want to store this directory in your repository, so it’s best to put it in the VCS ignore list. With git you simply do:

The .gitignore file is ignored by dpkg-source, so you’re not adding any noise to the generated source package.

2. Unapply patches after the build

If you store upstream sources with non-applied patches (most people do), and if you don’t build packages in a temporary build directory, then you probably want to unapply the patches after the build so that your repository is again in a clean status.

This is now the default since dpkg-source will unapply any patch that it had to apply by itself. Thus if you start the build with a clean tree, you’ll end up with a clean tree.

But you can still force dpkg-source to unapply patches by adding “unapply-patches” to debian/source/local-options:

svn-buildpackage always builds in a temporary directory so the repository is left exactly like it was before the build, this option is thus useless. git-buildpackage can also be told to build in a temporary directory with --git-export-dir=../build-area/ (the directory ../build-area/ is the one used by svn-buildpackage, so this option makes git-buildpackage behave like svn-buildpackage in that respect).

3. Manage your quilt patches as a git branch

Instead of using quilt to manage the Debian-specific patches, it’s possible to use git itself. git-buildpackage comes with gbp-pq (“Git-BuildPackage Patch Queue”): it can export the quilt serie in a git branch that you can manipulate like you want. Each commit represents a patch, so you want to rebase that branch to edit intermediary commits. Check out the upstream documentation of this tool to learn how to work with it.

There’s an alternative tool as well: git-dpm. Its website explains the principle very well. It’s a more complicated than gbp-pq but it has the advantage of keeping the history of all branches used to generate the quilt series of all Debian releases. You might want to read a review made by Sam Hartman, it explains the limits of this tool.

4. Document how to review the changes

One of the main benefit of this new source format is that it’s easy to review changes because upstream changes are kept as separate patches properly documented (ideally using the DEP-3 format). With the tools above, the commit message becomes the patch header. Thus it’s important to write meaningful commit messages.

This works well as long as your workflow considers the Debian patches as a branch that you rebase on top of the upstream sources at each release. Some maintainers don’t like this workflow and prefer to have the Debian changes applied directly in the packaging branch. They switch to a new upstream version by merging it in their packaging branch. In that case, it’s difficult to generate a quilt serie out of the VCS. Instead, you should instruct dpkg-source to store all the changes in a single patch (which is then similar to the good old .diff.gz) and document in the header of that patch how the changes can be better reviewed, for example in the VCS web interface. You do the former with the --single-debian-patch option and the latter by writing the header in debian/source/patch-header:

$ echo "single-debian-patch" >> debian/source/local-options
$ cat >debian/source/patch-header <<END
This patch contains all the Debian-specific
changes mixed together. To review them
separately, please inspect the VCS history
at http://git.debian.org/?=collab-maint/foo.git
END

While I have spent countless hours working on the new source format known as “3.0 (quilt)”, I’ve just realized that I have never blogged about its features and the reasons that lead me to work on it. Let’s fix this.

The good old “1.0” format

Up to 2008, dpkg-source was only able to cope with a single source format (now named “1.0”). That format was used since the inception of the project. While it worked fine for most cases, it suffered from a number of limitations—mainly because it stored the Debian packaging files as a patch to apply on top of the upstream source tarball.

This patch can have two functions: creating the required files in the debian sub-directory and applying changes to the upstream sources. Over time, if the maintainer made several modifications to the upstream source code, they would end up entangled (and undocumented) in this single patch. In order to solve this problem, patch systems were created (dpatch, quilt, simple-patchsys, dbs, …) and many maintainers started using them. Each implementation is slightly different but the basic principle is always the same: store the upstream changes as multiple patches in the debian/patches/ directory and apply them at build-time (and remove them during cleanup).

Design goals for the new formats

When I started working on the new source package format, I set out to get rid of all the known limitations and to integrate a patch system in dpkg-source. I wanted to clear up the situation so that learning packaging only requires to learn one patch system and would not require modifying debian/rules to use it. I picked quilt because it was popular, came with a large set of features, and was not suffering from NIH syndrome. This lead to the “3.0 (quilt)” source format.

I also created “3.0 (native)” as a distinct format. “1.0” was able to generate two types of source packages (native and non-native) but I did not want to continue with this mistake of mixing both in a single format. The KISS principle dictated that the user should pick the format of his choice, put it in debian/source/format and be done with it. Now the build can rightfully fail when the requirements are not met instead of doing something unexpected as a fallback.

Features of “3.0 (quilt)”

This is the format that replaces the non-native variant of the 1.0 source format. The features below are specific to the new format and differentiate it from its ancestor:

Creates a new quilt-managed patch in debian/patches/ when it finds changes to the upstream files.

Features of “3.0 (native)”

This format is very similar to the native variant of the 1.0 source format except for two things:

it supports compression formats other than gzip: bzip2, lzma, xz.

it excludes by default a bunch of files that should usually not be part of the tarball (VCS specific files, vim backup files, etc.)

Timeline

Looking back at the history is interesting. This project already spans multiple years and is not really over until a majority of packages have switched to the new formats.

January 2008: the discussion how to cope with patches sanely rages on debian-devel@lists.debian.org. My initial decisions are the result of this discussion.

March 2008: I have implemented the new formats and I request feedback. dpkg 1.14.17 (uploaded to experimental) is the first release supporting them.

April 2008: I ask ftpmasters to support the new source packages in #457345.

June 2008: Lenny freeze. dpkg is not supposed to change anymore. Several changes concerning the new source formats are still accepted in the following months given that this code is not yet used in production and must only be present so that lenny can cope with new source packages once squeeze starts using them.

February 2009: Lenny release.

March 2009: Work on squeeze has started, ftpmasters have done nothing to support new source formats, I submit a patch in #457345 to speed things up. I start a wiki page to track the project’s progress and to answer common questions of maintainers.

November 2009: After an ftpmaster sprint, it’s now possible to upload new source packages in unstable. This draws massive attention to the new format and some people start complaining about some design decisions. The implementation of “3.0 (quilt)” changes a lot during this month. dpkg in lenny is even updated to keep up with those changes.

March 2010: Up to now, I was planning to let dpkg-source build new source packages by default at some point in the future. After several rounds of discussions, I agree that it’s not the best course of action and decides instead to make debian/source/format mandatory. The maintainer must be explicit about the source format that s/he wants to use.

October 2010: The new source formats are relatively popular, a third of the source packages have already switched: see the graph. The squeeze freeze in August clearly stopped the trend, hopefully it will continue once squeeze is released.

June 2013: Project is finished?

As you can see this project is not over yet, although the most difficult part is already behind me. For my part, the biggest lesson is that you won’t ever get enough review until your work is used within unstable. So if you have a Debian project that impacts a lot of people, make sure to organize an official review process from the start. And specifying your project through a Debian Enhancement Proposal is probably the best way to achieve this.

While gzip is the standard Unix tool when it comes to compression, there are other tools available and some of them are performing better than gzip in terms of compression ratio. This article will explain where you can make use of them in your Debian packaging work.

In the source package

A source package is composed of multiple files. The .dsc file is always uncompressed and it’s fine since it’s a small textual file. The upstream tarballs can be compressed with gzip (orig.tar.gz), bzip2 (orig.tar.bz2), lzma (orig.tar.lzma) or xz (orig.tar.xz), so choose the one that you want if upstream provides the tarball compressed with multiple tools. Put it at the right place and dpkg-source will automatically use it. Note however that packages using source format “1.0” are restricted to gzip, and the main Debian archive currently only allows gzip and bzip2 (xz might be allowed later) even if the source format “3.0 (quilt)” supports all of them.

The debian packaging files are provided either in a .diff.gz file for source format “1.0” (again only gzip is supported) or in a .debian.tar file for source format “3.0 (quilt)”. The latter tarball can be compressed with the tool of your choice, you just have to tell dpkg-source which one to use (see below, note that gzip is the default).

In a native package, dpkg-source must generate the main tarball and you can instruct it to use another tool than gzip with the --compression option. That option is usually put in debian/source/options:

For “3.0 (quilt)” source packages, this option is not very useful as the debian tarball that gets compressed is usually not very large. But some maintainers like to use the same compression tool for the upstream tarball and the debian tarball, so you can use this option to harmonize both.

In native packages, it’s much more interesting: for instance the size of dpkg’s source package has been reduced of 30% by switching to bzip2, saving 2Mb of disk.

In the binary packages

.deb files also contain compressed tar archives and by default they use gzip as well:

$ ar t dpkg_1.15.9_i386.deb
debian-binary
control.tar.gz
data.tar.gz

data.tar.gz is the archive that contains all the files to be installed and it’s the one that you can compress with another tool if you want. Again this is mostly interesting for (very) large packages where the size difference clearly justifies deviating from the default compression tool. Try it out and see how many megabytes you can shove. Another aspect that you must keep in mind is that those alternative tools might use important amount of memory to do their job, both for compression and decompression. So if your package is meant to be installed on embedded platforms, or if you want to build your package on low-end hardware with few memory, you might want to stick with gzip.

Now how do you change the compression tool? Easy, dpkg-deb supports a -Z option, so you just have to pass “-Zbzip2″ for example. You can also pass “-z6″ for example to change the compression level to 6 (it’s interesting because a lower compression level might require less memory depending on the tool used). The dpkg-deb invocation is typically hidden behind the call to dh_builddeb in your debian/rules so you have to replace that invocation with “dh_builddeb -- -Zbzip2“.

If you are using a debhelper 7 tiny rules files, you have to add an override like in this example:

%:
dh $@
override_dh_builddeb:
dh_builddeb -- -Zbzip2

If you are using CDBS, you have to set the variable DEB_DH_BUILDDEB_ARGS:

dpkg-source is the program that generates the Debian source package when a new package version is built. It offers many interesting command-line options but they are often not used because people don’t know how to ensure that they are used every time the package is built. Let’s fill that gap!

It is possible to forward some options to dpkg-source by typing them on the dpkg-buildpackage command line but you’d have to remember to type them every time. You could create a shell alias to avoid typing them but then you can’t have different options for different packages. Not very practical.

The proper solution has been implemented last year (in dpkg 1.15.5). It is now possible to put options in debian/source/options. Any long option (those starting with “--“) can be put in that file, one option per line with the leading “--” stripped.

Notice that spaces around the equal sign are possible contrary on the command line. You can use quotes around the value but it’s not required.

The debian/source/options file is part of the source package so if someone else grabs the resulting source package and rebuilds everything, they will use the options that you defined in that file.

You can also use debian/source/local-options but this time the file will not be included in the resulting source package. This is interesting for options that you want to use when you build from the VCS (Version Control Repository, aka git/svn/bzr/etc.) but that people downloading the resulting source package should not have. Some options (like --unapply-patches) are only allowed in that file to ensure a consistent experience for users of source packages.

You can learn more about the existing options in the dpkg-source manual page. Read it, I’m sure you’ll learn something. Did you know that you can tell dpkg-source to abort if you have upstream changes not managed by an existing patch in debian/patches? It’s --abort-on-upstream-changes and it’s only allowed in debian/source/local-options.

Be sure to subscribe to the RSS feed or to the email newsletter to not miss useful documentation for Debian contributors!

Since the introduction of the “3.0 (quilt)” source format, it is now possible to integrate multiple upstream tarballs in Debian source packages. This article will show you how to do the same with your own package shall you need it. It’s quite useful to easily integrate supplementary plugins, translations, or documentation that the upstream developers are providing in separate tarballs.

Step by step explanation

We’ll take the spamassassin source package as an example. The upstream version is 3.3.1. The main upstream tarball is named as usual (spamassassin_3.3.1.orig.tar.gz) and contains the top directory of our source package. We already have a debian directory because the package is not new.

Upstream provides spamassassin rules in a separate tarball named Mail-SpamAssassin-rules-3.3.1.r901671.tgz. We grab it, rename it to spamassassin_3.3.1.orig-pkgrules.tar.gz and put it next to the main tarball. The “pkgrules” part is the component name that we choose to identify the tarball, it’s also the name of the directory in which it will be extracted inside the source package. For now that directory doesn’t exist yet so we must create it.

The supplementary tarball is now part of the source package but we’re not making anything useful out of it. We have to modify debian/rules (or debian/spamassin.install) to install the new files in the binary package.

A special case: bundling related software

In very rare cases, you might want to create a bundle of several software (small perl modules for example) and you don’t have any main tarball, you only have several small tarballs. Rename all the tarballs following the same logic as above and when building the source package you can ask dpkg-source to create an empty (and fake) main archive for you with the option --create-empty-orig:

$ dpkg-buildpackage -S --source-option=--create-empty-orig

Use with care as the version number you give to the bundle is what users will see and it’s likely unrelated to the version number of each individual software.

Common mistakes

Forgetting to extract the supplementary tarball

If you forget to extract the content of the supplementary tarball in the pkgrules directory, dpkg-source will emit lots of warnings about those files being deleted. In fact, you did not delete them but you only forgot to create them in the first place.

Using a bad version number for the supplementary tarball

Sometimes the supplementary tarball has a version of its own that does not match the upstream version. You must still name the file in a way that matches the upstream version of the main tarball otherwise it will not be picked up by dpkg-source and it will generate a new patch in debian/patches/ containing the whole new directory.

It’s possible to encode the version number of the supplementary tarball in the component name (in our example above we could have picked “pkgrules-r901671″ as component name) but this means that the name of the associated directory will regularly change and you must adapt your packaging rules to cope with this.

However this last trick has the benefit of being able to update the additional tarball without bumping the upstream version. A sourceful upload of a new revision of the package will be accepted by the archive: the main tarball is ignored since it’s unchanged but the supplementary tarball is taken since it’s a new file for the archive (it has a different filename).

Be sure to move away old versions of the additional tarball when you do that if you don’t want to upload several versions of the same tarball by mistake!

Misextracting the supplementary tarball

dpkg-source is very smart when it extracts the supplementary tarball and you should be as well when you manually extract it.

If the tarball contains only a single top-level directory, that directory is extracted, renamed to match the component name and moved in the source package directory.
If the tarball contains several top-level files or directories, then the target directory is first created and the content of the archive is directly extracted into that directory.

Here are commands to install the files in both cases (we’re already in the source package directory):